|
Post by ulstersocialist on Jul 26, 2008 12:25:35 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by leninsbane on Jul 27, 2008 23:56:12 GMT -5
Yeah, a pile of crap. It amounts to syaing that Stalins Russia was "State Capitalism" because they never got rid of the property principle even if they denied property to the masses. marx said this was a neccessary stage after the revolution. Read the Paris Manuscripts.
Since you're so fond of that site, check out "Karl Marx And The Close Of His System" by Bohn0Bhawaerk. It was nice of the pinkos of the site to provide his material and not have an effective rebuttal. So much for the Marxian Theory Of Value....ripped off from Ricardo and Adam Smith at a time when economists stopped believing it.
|
|
|
Post by ulstersocialist on Jul 28, 2008 11:19:15 GMT -5
Yeah, a pile of crap. It amounts to syaing that Stalins Russia was "State Capitalism" because they never got rid of the property principle even if they denied property to the masses. marx said this was a neccessary stage after the revolution. Read the Paris Manuscripts. Actually you've confused the 2. Marx never attacked personal property (which is different to private property) he only attacked the idea of private ownership of means of production. The Reason post leninist russia was state capitalist was because the ruling party in effect became the new beourgiose class. So in effect it was capitalism but with industries under state ownership. Since you're so fond of that site, check out "Karl Marx And The Close Of His System" by Bohn0Bhawaerk. It was nice of the pinkos of the site to provide his material and not have an effective rebuttal. So much for the Marxian Theory Of Value....ripped off from Ricardo and Adam Smith at a time when economists stopped believing it. perhaps being economists, they had vested interests in not supporting it? Ever considered those apples?
|
|
|
Post by leninsbane on Jul 28, 2008 14:23:09 GMT -5
This is probably the most laughable play on words. BUt i've seen it before. So Stalin appropritaed the factories and farms, and sold grain on the world market. How is this different than the feudal system or the time of the Pharaoes? And these pre-date capitalism. "State Capitalism" is a fabricated anti-concept.
Right. Class consciousness. So members of certain classes are constitutionally unfit to know the truth because of their class. Except of course Marx and Engels, two bourgeois crybabies.
Why dont you come out and defend the LTV? Do you affirm that Labor is the sole source of value for a commodity? And dont give me that "Value vs price, distinction" cuz ill spank you all night. The LTV has been dropped even by most Marxists.
The reason why economists have abandoned it is because is does not meaninglfully describe economic data, and it produces no data that adds to anyone's understanding.
Read the ten planks of the Communist Manifesto, as well as the German Ideology and some other swill by Engels and then tell me Marx approved of private ownership by citizens. It was ALL property, not just factories, the he considered to be the alien demiurge in his subconscious Gnostic fantasy.
|
|
|
Post by ulstersocialist on Jul 29, 2008 5:39:01 GMT -5
This is probably the most laughable play on words. BUt i've seen it before. So Stalin appropritaed the factories and farms, and sold grain on the world market. How is this different than the feudal system or the time of the Pharaoes? And these pre-date capitalism. "State Capitalism" is a fabricated anti-concept. If it is such a anti-concept why has it been written on extensively? I dont know what the situation is in the USA but here in Europe even most non-communists are able to fathom the difference between stalinism and bolshevik communism. If stalin was such an ardent supporter of bolshevik theory why did he execute all of them only to have him replaced with his own 'students'? Right. Class consciousness. So members of certain classes are constitutionally unfit to know the truth because of their class. Except of course Marx and Engels, two bourgeois crybabies. I did not insinuate that, Marx and Engels were neither apologists or supporters for the status quo as were these lassaiz faire economists and liberals. Anyone who acknowledges the fault of the system of capital and the suffering it causes can be a communist, class is irrelevant in practice in that respect. Why dont you come out and defend the LTV? Do you affirm that Labor is the sole source of value for a commodity? And dont give me that "Value vs price, distinction" cuz ill spank you all night. The LTV has been dropped even by most Marxists. By which ones? Because from where i'm standing it appears to be the bulwark of most marxist argument. The reason why economists have abandoned it is because is does not meaninglfully describe economic data, and it produces no data that adds to anyone's understanding. Most economists are not marxists so it is politically self defeating for them to subscribe to it. Read the ten planks of the Communist Manifesto, as well as the German Ideology and some other swill by Engels and then tell me Marx approved of private ownership by citizens. It was ALL property, not just factories, the he considered to be the alien demiurge in his subconscious Gnostic fantasy. I have read it, he only states there is 'no need to do away with personal property since capitalism has for all but 1 tenth of people done away with it anyway'.
|
|
|
Post by ulstersocialist on Jul 29, 2008 9:10:18 GMT -5
No reponse yet?
He he *plants red flag in this thread*
|
|
|
Post by leninsbane on Jul 29, 2008 23:06:53 GMT -5
LMAO My apologies you ferocious commie you! Its not a 9-5 world anymore and I can't be here to babysit you all day. Hell yesterday was my "sunday" if you can believe that. Ok, so how do I piss on yer arguments now. You deliberately evaded my point. This was such a punk out you're beginning to disappoint me. I couldnt give a good goddamn how many moonbat, pinko, leftard, weasels came out of the woodwork to write about it. This is an appeal to authority on your part..."SEE? Lots o' people believe it so its true!" I repeat. Stalin appropriated industry, and agriculture, to seel wheat on the world market, to propel the USSR into world power status. This is not a speices of capitalism. This is indistiguishable from countless other Feudal lords, Despots, kings, emperors and Pharaos who have done this before Capitalism. Stalin was not a capitalist, state, or otherwise. Karl Marx, who actually played the stock market was more of a capitalist than he. Not only did you insinuate it, you repeated it in your reply. You disregarded the views of an entire group of economists based on the idea that they were "apologists for the status quo". Thats it. Thats all it takes for you to disregard their views. The second part of your reply is pretty clear but I wonder if you considered that since Marx believed that ideas are determined by the material productive forces of a specific stage of historical development, he also believed that the ideas of capitalists are determined by the same. He even said so in the Manifesto. And if he believed this, then his idea of class consciousness falls when a bourgeois becomoes a communistFinally, neither Marx or Engels debated the leading free market economists of their time... everFor your sake you better hope that its not the bulwark of his argument. But alas, it was. The theory is discarded by most of whom call themselves "Analytic Marxists", whio adopt his framework for sociological study but have discarded the LTV. These are the majority of the communists in the universities today. See, the theory was torn to shreds by Eugene Von Bohm Baewark. Communists after him tried to salvage it, or tried to say thats not what he really meant. But now the majority of Marxists who have any pull dont believe it. And its not taught in economics, not becuase of our bourgeois dominated schools, silly, but because it does NOTHING to explain economic data. There you go again, non-Marxist economists rejected it because they're biased, not because the theory is useless as an explanatory tool. This is absurd. First, try to debunk all modern "bourgeois" economics. When you've done that, then cry about bias. Thats it? Thats all you got from reading all the books I mentioned? How does this prove that Marx was not after personal property? What about the "despotic inroads" to property he said must come? What about the fact that he believed that private property must be done away with so that the division of labor is done away with? The sentence you quoted was intended as a polemical tool. "Yeah we'll do away with property, but so what its not like you have it now anyway." They both said: their theory is summed up in the single phrase, Abolition Of Private Property. "Ïn this sense the theory of the communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property."" His bullshit about bourgeois property notwithstanding. Your move.
|
|
|
Post by ulstersocialist on Jul 31, 2008 14:42:24 GMT -5
You deliberately evaded my point. This was such a punk out you're beginning to disappoint me. I couldnt give a good goddamn how many moonbat, pinko, leftard, weasels came out of the woodwork to write about it. This is an appeal to authority on your part..;SEE? Lots o' people believe it so its true I repeat. Stalin appropriated industry, and agriculture, to seel wheat on the world market, to propel the USSR into world power status. This is not a speices of capitalism. This is indistiguishable from countless other Feudal lords, Despots, kings, emperors and Pharaos who have done this before Capitalism. Stalin was not a capitalist, state, or otherwise. Karl Marx, who actually played the stock market was more of a capitalist than he. the fact that the industries were not privately owned is arbitrary. Prior to Stalin, the soviet councils and the workers within them had some modicum of power with the way things were run. I dont care who stalin did business with, the fact is he reinstated the old social divisions into russia that were in place pre-bolshevism. What stalin did during his centralisation efforts is to give all authority to none but a few of his henchman elite party members. They were no better than the bosses of the old tsarist order that they were supposed to replace. You might not label that as capitalism, but it sure as hell aint socialism. Not only did you insinuate it, you repeated it in your reply. You disregarded the views of an entire group of economists based on the idea that they were "apologists for the status quo". Thats it. Thats all it takes for you to disregard their views. Heres an anology you should be able to grasp- If someone tries to burn me alive do i regard the view of the arsonist? No. The second part of your reply is pretty clear but I wonder if you considered that since Marx believed that ideas are determined by the material productive forces of a specific stage of historical development, he also believed that the ideas of capitalists are determined by the same. perhaps up to a point but only in as much as it was in their interests to go into 'that direction'. Capitalism can only last as long as the material conditions and social ignorance for it last. I think marx regarded the revolution as a 'second renaissance' in that communism would be to capitalist industrialism what the first renaissance was to medieval feudalism. He predicted that capitalism would go the way of witch burning and round earth denial. Or at least that is how i interpreted it. He even said so in the Manifesto. And if he believed this, then his idea of class consciousness falls when a bourgeois becomoes a communist someone of beourgiose origin can be communist but i dont agree that its possible to be 'actively' beourgiose since by definition it would be in their conflicting interest to support communism. You cant be communist and exploit workers labour at the same time, that is utter hypocrisy. Perhaps we have read and understood Marx differently. Perhaps the material conditions will force it to happen (dwindling fuel supplies, AIDS pandemic etc). I think it is naive to say that the beourgiose will somehow suddenly relinquish their status by their own volition. Certainly not without a major global catastrophe. Finally, neither Marx or Engels debated the leading free market economists of their time... everso what? For your sake you better hope that its not the bulwark of his argument. But alas, it was. The theory is discarded by most of whom call themselves "Analytic Marxists", whio adopt his framework for sociological study but have discarded the LTV. These are the majority of the communists in the universities today. See, the theory was torn to shreds by Eugene Von Bohm Baewark. Communists after him tried to salvage it, or tried to say thats not what he really meant. But now the majority of Marxists who have any pull dont believe it. And its not taught in economics, not becuase of our bourgeois dominated schools, silly, but because it does NOTHING to explain economic data. Well i havent encountered Eugene Von Bohm's work before so i will have to plead ignorance and concede this particular point. I will say that in my experience communists do actively still debate the LVT so i dont agree that it's been totally discounted. There you go again, non-Marxist economists rejected it because they're biased, not because the theory is useless as an explanatory tool. This is absurd. First, try to debunk all modern "bourgeois" economics. When you've done that, then cry about bias. In my sphere of experience its the best model for the relationship between labour, wages, profit and fat idle bastards. Thats it? Thats all you got from reading all the books I mentioned? How does this prove that Marx was not after personal property? What about the "despotic inroads" to property he said must come? What about the fact that he believed that private property must be done away with so that the division of labor is done away with? The sentence you quoted was intended as a polemical tool. "Yeah we'll do away with property, but so what its not like you have it now anyway." They both said: their theory is summed up in the single phrase, Abolition Of Private Property. "Ïn this sense the theory of the communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property."" His bullshit about bourgeois property notwithstanding. Your move. Again you've taken Marx out of context. You unfairly disregarded Marx's point about beourgiose property because there is an important difference. Beourgiose property is acquired by profit, or in other words capital acquired from the labour of others. Proletarian property (albeit far less in proportion) is different because it is acquired directly from merit of labour. The beourgiose has no need to take part in the same means to acquire property and is in effect the theif whom no one dare blame for fear of repercussion.
|
|
|
Post by Comrade Rage on Jul 31, 2008 20:08:52 GMT -5
Nope...you fail. Sorry. 'Stalinism', or anti-revisionist Communism and Communism are the same.
|
|
|
Post by leninsbane on Jul 31, 2008 21:56:29 GMT -5
Good then. If your are honest with yourself you will admit that this reply is a retreat on your part. I honestly think that privately YOU dont label it as capitalism either. If Stalin was a regression to pre-bolshevist Russia, then it was a return to quasi-feudalism.
But lets revisit this:
Are you on crack? Privately owned industry is the essence of capitalism. But no matter, you began you paragraph thus and ended it in an unadmitted concession.
Another evasion. How'bout this analogy...Does Newtons belief in Astrology invalidate Physics?
Refreshing bit of humility on your part and you have a measure of my respect. And neither did I say it was totally discounted, just very very unpopular among the majority of Marxists who know economics.
The synonym for this is bias. The detection of bias in your intellectual opponent does not relieve you of the obligation to refute his ideas.
Actually, Marx said that no social order collapses untill all the possibilities for it have been exhausted.
He also predicted that the lot of workers would get worse. They got better. So good in fact that Communists had to find another stand-in for the proletariat. Paul Baran found it in the third world, and now we have the myth that all our prosperity stands on African exploitation, not the immiseration of the working class.
Marx also predicted a mechanistic move from Fedualism to capitalism to communism. Which didnt happen.
He predicted that the revolution would come when the workers lot became unbearable. But logically, if the workers were descending to the depths of despair, they would be in no position to revolt. There was never a proletarian revolution on the planet. You of course would say then that Marxism has never been tried. I say its because of a lousy theory that can only lead to death camps in practice.
*sigh* Classes were not and are not the rigid castes that Marx described. Who are the bourgeoisie today? There has always been fluidity in class structure, if it can be said to have one. The reality is so different that Marx's epochs; Primitive Communism> Slavery>Feudalism>Capitalism>Communism...are fictions.
Besides, Marx was a hippocrite. Read a good non-hagiographical biography and he didnt give a good goddamn about the working class. He was proud of his wife's noble title and exploited their lifelong live-in maid.
Ok, so the bourgeoisie need capital to initiate industry, then exploit the workers for profit. Where do they get the initial capital? Are you even familiar with how the economy works, even back then?
Your understanding of the process is 19 century, where it belongs. The roles of entrpreneurs and business men are much more complex.
And since the LTV is bullshit, you cannot even categorically say workers are "exploited". Your description of "proletarian" property resembles that of the small to medium business. And their roles vascillate between manegerial and more blue collar tasks. You cant see this because you view class just as rigidly. THE PROLETARIAT IS A FICTITIOUS CLASS.
No. I disregarded it because he was paying lip service. Marx was a lover of Babeuf and proletarian "property" to Marx was property held in common...rendering it meaningless. If he envisioned Labor Certificates instead of real currency, where is the personal wealth required for personal property? If you think that this can be achieved through some kind of barter, then this is regress not progress, reactionary not revolutionary.
Henry Ford implemented mass production, then employed workers who were highly paid. Where is the theft? Where is the exploitative "surplus value" derived from the LTV?
Really? ;D So a man unlocks the secret of capitalist exploitation, "discovers" the true element on which value is based, and he doesnt want to debate those who he opposes? He was a chicken shit because his ideas were bankrupt then and they're bankrupt now.
|
|
|
Post by ulstersocialist on Aug 1, 2008 8:37:34 GMT -5
Nope...you fail. Sorry. 'Stalinism', or anti-revisionist Communism and Communism are the same. Making a blanket statement without backing it up isnt an argument. YOU FAIL.
|
|
|
Post by ulstersocialist on Aug 1, 2008 9:14:09 GMT -5
Good then. If your are honest with yourself you will admit that this reply is a retreat on your part. no i just happen to disagree with your analysis on the ideaology of stalinist era russia. I still believe in the concept of state capitalism and that it applied to post leninist USSR. I honestly think that privately YOU dont label it as capitalism either. If Stalin was a regression to pre-bolshevist Russia, then it was a return to quasi-feudalism. I know, i label it as 'state capitalism' which is a different concept to capitalism. In much the same vein that bolshevism differs from national bolshevism. They are different ideaologies. Are you on crack? Privately owned industry is the essence of capitalism. But no matter, you began you paragraph thus and ended it in an unadmitted concession. see above. Another evasion. How'bout this analogy...Does Newtons belief in Astrology invalidate Physics? if newton had indeed supernatural beliefs it does not invalidate the fact that he wrote great works that were immensely contributive to materialist mathematics. His personal beliefs are not necessarilly in spite of that. Being religious does not negate a materialist world view in other aspects. My physics teacher was a devout christian. Refreshing bit of humility on your part and you have a measure of my respect. And neither did I say it was totally discounted, just very very unpopular among the majority of Marxists who know economics. sorry, you seemed to more or less imply that as i read and understood it. The synonym for this is bias. The detection of bias in your intellectual opponent does not relieve you of the obligation to refute his ideas. yes but that task is made immensely more difficult when you are fobbed off with dismissive strawmen and then given names of obscure pre 20th century economists with no descript quotation of when and how they attacked the LVT. Actually, Marx said that no social order collapses untill all the possibilities for it have been exhausted. i agree with that concept in principle but it doesnt mean that the process cant be expediated by militant activism (as it was in 1917). He also predicted that the lot of workers would get worse. They got better. So good in fact that Communists had to find another stand-in for the proletariat. Paul Baran found it in the third world, and now we have the myth that all our prosperity stands on African exploitation, not the immiseration of the working class. i would happen to believe it stands on both. The idea that the third world is underdeveloped because of the west at large is Maoist hogwash. Most leftists would disagree with that analysis. A third world worker is not in his state because of the diminished comfort of the western worker. Both suffer because of the international beourgiose. Marx also predicted a mechanistic move from Fedualism to capitalism to communism. Which didnt happen. different material circumstances. Capitalism has been able to linger because of the resources at its disposal. Fascism, international warfare, mass media control and propaganditive misinformation via means like TV and the internet. This was not among the arsenal of feudal kings and lords. He predicted that the revolution would come when the workers lot became unbearable. But logically, if the workers were descending to the depths of despair, they would be in no position to revolt. There was never a proletarian revolution on the planet. You of course would say then that Marxism has never been tried. I say its because of a lousy theory that can only lead to death camps in practice. I would disagree of course, by reiterating thats what happens when you attempt to run the ideaologies in tandem on the same planet. Cant be done. *sigh* Classes were not and are not the rigid castes that Marx described. Who are the bourgeoisie today? There has always been fluidity in class structure, if it can be said to have one. The reality is so different that Marx's epochs the class structure is perhaps even more relevant today! I remember it being cited once that as much as half the worlds economy is controlled by as few as 300 individuals. When we refer to the modern beourgiose, it is them we mean. You cannot look at the likes of Gates, the sultan of brunei etc and tell me there is no class structure. It is you that is in denial. Besides, Marx was a hippocrite. Read a good non-hagiographical biography and he didnt give a good goddamn about the working class. He was proud of his wife's noble title and exploited their lifelong live-in maid. sources? Ok, so the bourgeoisie need capital to initiate industry, then exploit the workers for profit. Where do they get the initial capital? Most are born into it, a rigid minority pull themselves up by their bootstraps. However, that does not negate the difference between proletarian and beourgiose property. If someone is able to gain modest property/capital they should continue their exploits via the same means without being able to expropriate the labour value from others. Profit is profit, and exploitation is exploitation. I do not understand the moral or humane rationale for affording most reward to those most able to stoke the flames of the status quo as opposed to making a material contribution of the species at large. Your understanding of the process is 19 century, where it belongs. The roles of entrpreneurs and business men are much more complex. yet the workers still gain nothing more so the point is moot. And since the LTV is bullshit, so you keep saying but you've failed to prove it so far. you cannot even categorically say workers are "exploited". Your description of "proletarian" property resembles that of the small to medium business. And their roles vascillate between manegerial and more blue collar tasks. You cant see this because you view class just as rigidly. THE PROLETARIAT IS A FICTITIOUS CLASS. see above regarding my point about gates, sultan etc. No. I disregarded it because he was paying lip service. Marx was a lover of Babeuf and proletarian "property" to Marx was property held in common...rendering it meaningless. If he envisioned Labor Certificates instead of real currency, where is the personal wealth required for personal property? If you think that this can be achieved through some kind of barter, then this is regress not progress, reactionary not revolutionary. if someone builds a house through their own labours, under marxist principle he would own that house. When it changes is when that property has been exapropriated from the labour of others. I didnt once mention currency or labour certificates. Henry Ford implemented mass production, then employed workers who were highly paid. Where is the theft? Where is the exploitative "surplus value" derived from the LTV? the theft is the profit taken from the overall income. Other than Henry ford's capital and ownership of the factory (which are arbitrary in the materialist sense) he made no contribution to building those cars therefore deserves none of the money. Really? ;D So a man unlocks the secret of capitalist exploitation, "discovers" the true element on which value is based, and he doesnt want to debate those who he opposes? He was a chicken shit because his ideas were bankrupt then and they're bankrupt now. how do you know it wasnt the other way round, the economists werent afraid of debating with marx? Were you there at the time or something? ;D
|
|
|
Post by leninsbane on Aug 1, 2008 20:58:46 GMT -5
By declaring Stalins system as "State Capitalism", you are declaring it a species of capitalism. If Stalin was a regression to czarist Russia, then he was a qusi feudalist, not a capitalist of any kind. Logic is Logic. Stalis did not allow private ownership, therefore there was no capitalism in Russia. Capitalism without private ownership...is not capitalism. If you apply the term "Capitalism" of any sort post-Leninist Russia, with he absence of private ownership, and regardless of your own admission that he resembled czarist Russia, then you are intransigient. Why? You didnt address it. Simple. The pursuit of profit has lowered poverty and brought more prosperity to more people than any other system. According to your view, if I pay you 50.00 to catch some fish and then I sell the fish for 55.00, this is somehow an injustice. Abd this: Is nothing but willfull ignorance. Millions have pulled themselves up by their bootstraps. They are not a "rigid" minority, lowerclasses frequently ascend to higher ones and vice versa. You have not shown yourself capable of exposing any straw men. And I think any economist would be obscure to you. Look him up...1905...the LTV died before it started. That doesnt let him off the hook for making an impossible prediction. As for the rest, if you really think that capitalism is sustained by media, internet and Fascists, perhaps its you who needs to explain. This is true. But all you did was offer an elaboration of my analogy. It was not a rebuttal to the idea of class consciousness rendering certain ideas irredeemable just for the fact they are espoused by a certain class. Bullshit. Henry Ford made the industry possible, their jobs possible, they were trained to pull levers, they had full bellies, owned houses, and cars, and still you deem him the thief. He made no contribution to building them except for the factory and machinery and the money. You believe that just because he did this from the world's resources he deserves no credit. Profit is not theft, its progress. And profit raised his workers standard of lving. Actually I delivered it a couple of good body blows here: anticom.proboards46.com/index.cgi?board=intro&action=display&thread=80And you didnt reply. Do I plant my flag in the thread now? And at this point, you are coming off as quite the poseur. Explain what the LTV is, no evasions, no bullshit. I can do it in 1 post. Really? Can you point to any one of my posts and show where I deny class structure? I showed you that classes are more fluid and mobile in reality. You reference to Gates and the 300 boogeymen is moot. Uh, I know you didnt...I did. Categorically false. This is what I mean when you all ask us to deny our senses. The worker under capitalism today in North America and Europe has the most of any anywhere else. If you deny this, then lets have a debate on the Yeti.
|
|
|
Post by leninsbane on Aug 1, 2008 21:50:40 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by leninsbane on Aug 1, 2008 22:13:13 GMT -5
|
|